## Chapter 8 — No 48-hour timelock is still a gap ### Lesson map Lesson 08. Map, example, EX054. ```mermaid flowchart TD A["Checklist asks for at least 48 hours"] --> B["Source marks the row unmet"] B --> C{"Does agreeing to add one create it?"} C -->|No| D["The gap line stays"] C -->|Yes| E["No new duration is printed"] ``` The delay is a control the source does not yet record. ### Logical drawing ```text what a timelock is for hold an administrator change so others can notice it what this file shows gap: at least 48 h source marks the row unmet what this file does not show some other number of hours the delay already in force ``` ### Learning outcomes After this chapter, you should be able to: 1. Say what the timelock row is asking for. 2. Keep the gap at the duration the print names. 3. Refuse to treat an agreement as the delay already in force. ### 8.1 The row asks for a wait. The source says the wait is absent. An administrator change can alter who controls the loyalty rules. A timelock holds such a change for a minimum time before it takes effect, which gives someone else a chance to notice it and object. The checklist sets that minimum at 48 hours. The source marks the row unmet, and the print carries the gap in the script's own words: admin changes behind a timelock of at least 48 h. Chapter 4's agreement covers this gap together with the other two. Agreeing to add the wait is not the same fact as the wait already being configured. The manuscript prints no other duration. It does not say 24 hours, and it does not say a week. Writing a different number would invent a control the vendor has not been shown to have. Until a later record, made against this same row, says the wait is present, the gap line remains the evidence. The mint row's pass does not supply the missing wait. Those are different checks. ### 8.2 Worked example The duration in the gap line is the only duration this lesson may quote. | Sentence | Ground | Decision | |---|---|---| | "The print lists the 48-hour timelock as a gap." | The embedded gap line | May stay | | "The vendor agreed to fix that gap before launch." | Chapter 4's promise | May stay, as a promise | | "The timelock is already 48 hours." | The source marks the row unmet | Refuse | | "Use 12 hours instead." | No such figure | Refuse | > **Synthetic case.** No production delay is being configured in this chapter. The gap is a line in a synthetic print. ### Errors and limits Naming the missing wait does not install it. The agreement remains ahead of the evidence. ### Apply - **EX054 — Is the wait already there?** The gap line says admin changes lack a timelock of at least 48 hours. The vendor has agreed to fix the gap. Is the timelock present in this file, and may you print a different duration? *Rubric:* 3 = the 48-hour gap stays; the agreement is not the control already present; no other duration is printed;; 2 = the gap stays unmet;; 1 = the agreement only;; 0 = none. ### Continue studying — lesson 08 (chapter 08 of 20) [← Chapter 07](#ch-07) · [Course chapter index](../SUBJECTS.md) · [Chapter 09 →](#ch-09) Continue to the next authored lesson. ## Worked answers **EX054.** No. The 48-hour timelock gap stays. Agreement to fix it is not the control already present.